• AperiOperimentum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 years ago

    Good.

    Quality content is better to me than having a large quantity of content. I’d rather finish a game and think, “wow, that was solid” instead of “wow, when will this end”. Even if it’s endgame content; I don’t want it to feel like chores.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      Red dead 2 is significantly shorter of a playthrough than some RPGs. Much much shorter than Valhalla. But it’s a significantly better game

  • Odo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Are they really describing Valhalla as a 100-hour game? I spent that long on Origins, and Valhalla has way more to it.

    But overall a shorter AC game sounds great. I miss the days when even going for 100% took 45 hours instead of triple digits.

    • Boiglenoight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      I tried to see everything there was to see in Valhalla. I had to stop. There were just other games to play.

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 years ago

        Thing is the story didn’t stay compelling and fell off. The level barriers also felt super weird in a way that didn’t feel good. If they can make ass creed in in a similar way to ghost of Tsushima where every quest even side quests felt amazing, then I bet they’d really bring assassin’s creed back to the front of gaming

        • Boiglenoight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 years ago

          Yeap. The quality of the quests were bad. Maybe good for a AssCreed game, but compared to modern counterparts in the genre, weak. Witcher 3 is the high bar for me.

      • TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        I’ve been playing off and on for a month or two and feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. I tend to get distracted though and just go off and fuck around, finding things.

        • Boiglenoight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          That’s the way to play. Trying to grind the game and do everything…it’s a lot. Best to either just plow through the singleplayer main story if you want to move on or play a little at a time over the course of 10 years.

    • teft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I just played and finished valhalla for the first time and it took me ~70 hours to complete the main storyline. I didn’t 100% the maps just every now and then I’d go exploring.

  • notun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I don’t give shit if it’s 10 hours or 100 hours as long as the game is fun.

      • ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yeah, I feel that way about all entertainment. I don’t want to be watching 8 hour movies, reading a book for six months, or sitting through 20 seasons of a TV show. There are so many entertainment options, it seems crazy to spend so much time on one thing.

        I’m currently enjoying Witcher 3 but at the 80 hour mark I’m seriously considering finishing Hearts of Stone and then taking a break before tackling Blood and Wine.

    • Strangle@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I don’t see why there is such a backlash on shorter games.

      Personally I would love a dense 25-ish hour game experience

      • ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        I don’t think there’s a backlash against shorter games. Ubisoft found a formula that has kept people playing their games for long periods of time, and if anything, there’s a backlash against these long, collect-a-thons.

  • forksandspoons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 years ago

    Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle isnt as meaningful of an experince as some thats maybe wide as a pond and deep as a pond. 100+ hours is useless if those hours are boring. Id rather they make shorter more meaningful experiences.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    It’s kind of funny reading that article as it’s basically saying longer games make for longer work hours from the perspective of a games journalist. Must be pretty annoying to get through some 60 hours of same-ish game just to get a review out.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think this slammed Exoprimal, too? It’s a multiplayer game oddly designed to dripfeed a story (and more content) across the long time that people are expected to play multiplayer games. I think that made for a poor reviewing atmosphere.